Nihilism

[ashyr]

So who here is a nihlist? and what do you guys think of this Belief system?


im impartial to it. its great.
i think some of davids idea's fit into this category also.


anyone comment?

[Anders Lindman]

I read in Wikipedia that: Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning.

I think that's a false idea. Money has objective meaning. Period.

[hagbard_celine]

I read in Wikipedia that: Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning.

I think that's a false idea. Money has objective meaning. Period.

It's similar to existentialism, except that nihilists don't even accept that the free willed individual has any meaning!

Nihilism is worn on the sleeve in philosphical debates as a mark of bravery. This is certainly what I've noticed in my Spritiualist discussion group. Those who believe in meaninglessness strut around the room with their chests out, swaggering with their thumbs in their pockets like John Wayne, and for a very good reason:

If you reject the concept of universal meaning or uber-consciousness then you are set up for life! The street-cred it gives you will carry you through scientific and philosphical circles as a hero, a brave, hard-headed warrior who has the guts to face the awful truth of the finality of existance which the feeble, huddling masses dare not, hiding beneath their comforting blanket of religion. I bet they get laid more than the mystics do!

I wonder how many of the macho-men actually do believe in universal meaning, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps! It's all a bit childish to me, rather like kids showing of their muscle in the playground.

[Anders Lindman]

I wonder how many of the macho-men actually do believe in universal meaning, but won't speak out about it because they're afraid of being called wimps!

he he. Another thing is a question like: "What is the purpose of life?" What many people fail to do is to first define what they mean by 'purpose'. So I would ask: "What do you mean by 'purpose'? How do you define purpose?" My own answer is that purpose is a goal-setting. When we set a goal, then that goal is the purpose. I don't see how that can be so difficult to understand. :D

[ashyr]

"Macho" is a categorical term. i would imagine it takes all sorts.
but i like where your coming from.

an overdose of nothingness.....

[synergy777]

http://www.egs.edu/resources/camus.html

In 1949 Camus had a relapse of his tuberculosis, and he locked himself in seclusion to write. When he recovered in 1951 he published L'Homme Révolté (The Rebel), a text on artistic, historical, and metaphysical rebellion, in which he lays out the difference between revolution and revolt. Camus sees revolt as a peaceful, evolutionary process that requires leadership but not violence. He criticizes Hegel's work, accusing it of glorifying power and the state over social morality and ethics, and he accuses Marx of co-opting Hegelian philosophy to allow "any means to an end". Camus prefers Mediterranean humanism, a philosophy grounded in nature and moderation, to the violence and historicism he sees as part and parcel to what he calls the "Absolutist" philosophies. The attacks on Hegel, Marxism and nihilism in The Rebel had a profound effect on Camus' peers. The book was described as intellectual treason by leftist critics, and a review by Francis Jeanson in Les Temps Modernes accused Camus of being a traitor to the left. After Camus attempted to defend himself in a letter to the publication, Jean-Paul Sartre, the editor of Les Temps Modernes at the time, published an open letter in response that tallied 19 pages. The letter included personal attacks, and marked the end of the two philosophers' friendship.

Despite his isolation from the French intellectual elite, Camus remained an active advocate for human right, increasing his political activities throughout the 1950s. He began to write for l'Express daily newspaper in 1955, covering the Algerian war. The violence was escalating in Algeria with the arrival of French troops, and Camus saw no hope in ending it. He pleaded, however, for a "civil" truce, which would spare the civilian population from violence and limit it to fighting between troops and rebels. He managed to organize a debate between Muslims and the Front Français, in a public setting, which went without incident, an achievement that earned him the nick-name in Algiers of "Le Colonisateur de Bonne Volonté" or the Well-Meaning Colonialist. He came back into favor with intellectual circles in 1956 with the publication of his novel The Fall. In 1957 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for his essay Réflexions Sur la Guillotine as an influential work on behalf of human rights.

nihilism is ploy for man to give up free will, hope for the future, love of life etc. its a decadent philosophy, imho. see a real phliospher would not be liked by the elite, eg look at socrates, they made him drink poison. they like people who give support to their view, which they give to the masses, but don't follow it themselves. the elite believe in spirtual realms, eg rituals, hermrtic, left hand path. whilst giving the masses a matrialistic doctrine to keep them occupied, bread and circus for the mind, hence the masses ignore the soul.

do as i say profane, not as i do., get it.

The modern mind is in complete disarray. Knowledge has stretched itself to the point where neither the world nor our intelligence can find any foot-hold. It is a fact that we are suffering from nihilism.
Albert Camus

[ashyr]

got cut n paste?

[tumblerpigeon]

I have the following nihilist tendencies:

There is no overall purpose of life that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell we exist by accident. In particular, the universe doesn't appear to be driving towards any particular conclusion be it Nirvana, End Times, God Consciousness etc. Maybe it'll all just implode long after the Earth has long been roasted by the sun as some physicists say. I don't know, I'm not a physicist.

I don't believe in any gods or anything that requires faith or that faith is an inherently positive thing. Don't actively disbelieve in any of them either.

I believe with some degree of certainty only that which is self-evident, and any other knowledge necessary for decision making I just make pragmatic guesses about. E.g, I believe that there exists experience of various stimuli, and that pleasant/unpleasant feelings have an inherently positive/negative value, because those things are self-evident to me. 'Value' isn't even be defined without feelings, and feelings aren't defined without value. I believe that in external reality I am a human, that all my memories are of things I've actually experienced rather than had planted etc., without certainty but for mere pragmatism. For all intents and purposes, right now, it doesn't affect my decisions whether my senses are depicting objective reality or whether it's all baselessly simulated. Other times, I go by probability, e.g. I find some of Icke's theories more plausible than those of the mainstream media, so would err on their side if the situation called for it.

I've never been sure of exactly what is meant by a rejection of the objective existence of 'morality', but, I don't believe in free will (again, don't actively disbelieve the notion either) so I don't see any inherent reason to punish or reward certain people for actions. However, because I think that the feelings of other people probably have value equal to my own, I decide that while I'm here I might as well make others feel better just as I seek better feelings for myself. This may be defined as morality. A form of the Golden Rule in fact, which to me makes rational sense to follow. Why would I seek my own pleasure over anyone else's, all the time my best guess suggests that they have feelings as I do?

But some define morality as a system by which certain actions are inherently demanding either reward or punishment, quite apart from any practical justification, and I don't believe morality by that definition has any basis in objective reality or logic. Criminal justice exists for the convenience of the majority, but it's currently not even the best way of achieving that, as it seems to me well evidenced that antisocial behaviour is caused by neurochemical damage reversible by the removal of the offending chemical substances such as certain heavy metals and restoration of appropriate mineral status in the body. This is one issue about which nihilism separates me significantly from mainstream politics and philosophy. Some people are affronted or made uncomfortable by the implications of this notion. I believe good and evil in this sense is one unscientific superstition that society isn't ready to let go of yet.

Good topic. :) Nihilism has a bad name in some circles, but I think many more people have nihilistic approaches or beliefs than recognise them for that or would want to.

[hirschfelder]

Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos - Walter

[Anders Lindman]

If someone says: "nothing has any meaning" I will ask: "does that include what you just said?" :p